The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

Facilities management practices Facilities

management
in the Nigerian public practices

universities
Sunday Julius Odediran 5
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Received 13 November 2013
Ile-Ife, Nigeria Revised 12 June 2014
Accepted 16 June 2014
Job Taiwo Gbadegesin
Department of Estate Management, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and
Mujidat Olubola Babalola
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the diffusion of facilities management (FM) as
a sustainable tool to facility performance within the perspective of public universities in Nigeria.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature reveals the practices of FM in both the
educational and institutional buildings. Factors influencing the practices and strategies for sustaining
facilities condition were evaluated. Data were collected through a well-structured questionnaire
administered on both the technical and managerial officers in charge of FM in Nigeria public
universities. Data collected were subjected to both the descriptive and inferential statistical tools.
Findings – The FM practice in the Nigeria public universities is found to be lagging behind private
sector experience, despite the significant benefits of FM to learning process. In particular, passive
actions are being taken to manage facilities, even when most are obsolete and deteriorated. Critical
challenges to FM practice are low level of technology, poor funding and poor policy implementation.
Outsourcing of technical personnel is essential to ameliorate the conditions of public universities’
facilities in Nigeria.
Practical implications – This paper helps policymakers and administrators to know the condition
of facilities and understand the FM practice in the Nigerian public universities.
Originality/value – Reactive/passive practice is the norm in FM of public universities in Nigeria.
However, outsourcing of technical personnel in FM has a great potential for functional facilities in
public universities.
Keywords Nigeria, Facilities funding, Facilities management, Facilities performance, FM practices,
Public universities
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Facilities Management

Vol. 13 No. 1, 2015
The authors acknowledge the supports of the FM officers in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife pp. 5-26
and University of Ibadan, Ibadan in Nigeria for responding to the research questions through © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1472-5967
which data discussed in this paper were obtained. DOI 10.1108/JFM-11-2013-0058
JFM Introduction
13,1 Universities are central to the national capacity to connect with the new international
knowledge system, and this is achievable within the arena where there is an effective
and operative facilities management (FM) practice. In as much as learning environment
has been identified to be one of the factors that determines effective teaching and
learning, deplorable facilities pose a barrier to the achievement of this objective (Price,
6 2003). Challenges associated with ageing and expanding facilities was identified by
higher education leaders in the developed economies as one of the determinants of
academic and research performance (Marmolejo, 2007).
In the developing economies like Nigeria, emphasis on dynamism in infrastructure
financing approaches, government budget deficit minimization and existing ageing/
fading infrastructure in tertiary institutions necessitate the need for alternative
infrastructure financing route and initiatives which integrate private bodies into the
financing system as a way to improve the existing ensure facilities (Gbadegesin and
Aluko, 2014). NUC (2006) reveals that both academic and physical facilities at the
universities were in deplorable state which calls for an effective management practice.
Therefore, the need for better management of facilities of institutions of higher learning
is a matter of urgency, as they are meant to support the core objective of teaching,
learning and research.
The term “Facilities Management” has been viewed from different perspectives but
towards similar objectives. Teicholz (2001) and The International Facility Management
Association IFMA (2006) describe FM as a process of intergrading, managing and
coordinating interrelated “people, process and place” issues, and it functions within a
corporation or an organization. A more comprehensive view by Amaratunga and
Baldry (2000) affirms that “FM” is responsible for coordinating all efforts related to
planning, designing and managing buildings and their systems, equipment and
furniture to enhance the organization’s ability to successfully compete in a rapidly
changing world. FM is further described as a process that ensures that building and
other technical systems support the operations of an organization, as well as an
integrated approach to operating, maintaining, improving and adapting the building
and infrastructure of an organization to create an environment that supports the
primary objectives of that organization (Atkin and Brooks, 2000; Nutt et al., 2000;
Fenker, 2004). In relation to academic/educational facilities, FM is the application of
scientific methods in the overall management of the physical environment of learning
for the actualization of the educational goals and objectives (Asiabaka, 2008).
The primary function of FM is to handle and manage support services to meet the
needs of the organization, its core operations and employees (Chitopanich, 2004). Lavy
(2008) also establishes that structured and organized FM has the potential to improve
the physical performance and appearance of a building and its system, as well as
increase the users’ level of satisfaction, and to improve the efficiency with which the
building is maintained and operated. The move for a better management of facilities is
set to continue as buildings with their infrastructure and equipment elements become
ever more sophisticated (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2002). FM is increasingly forming a
part of core business strategy and operations (Nutt et al., 2000) of organizations,
including educational buildings and infrastructures, as well as associated services.
However, the primary purpose of the teaching and learning process is to bring in the
learner-desirable changes in behaviour through critical thinking. This process does not
take place in a vacuum but rather in an environment structured to facilitate learning Facilities
(Waggaman, 1992). The World Bank (2009) report indicates that education in general management
and university education in particular is central to the building of knowledge economy
and society in all nations. Hence, the specific purpose of FM in an academic environment
practices
is to improve building conditions and appearance to achieve a system that facilitates
teaching and learning and increases instructional effectiveness, as well as efficiency and
effectiveness of both staff and students (Waggaman, 1992; Asiabaka, 2008). Although 7
higher education properties and faculties can contribute to high-quality education, it is
the interrelationship within the organizational context that provides the catalyst for an
improved performance (Moohan, 1993). UK-based Commission for Architectural and
Built Environment, CABE (2005), links the efficient and effective management of
facilities of educational institutions to the overall service delivery in the institutions,
particularly as regards the retention and performance of both staff and students of
higher educational institutions.
There is growing competition among educational institutions to provide improved
facilities that cater to a variety of learning provisions and do this in a cost-effective
manner (CABE, 2005). An assessment of the performance of institutions delivering
educational services has become a matter of particular interest to governments around
the world seeking to increase the effectiveness of educational provision and maximize
value for money (Belcher, 1997). Performance evaluation now places more demands
upon the facility (Kerschkam, 1991), and this is true for universities and institutions that
are entrusted with the responsibility of judiciously utilizing public funds (Preiser, 1995).
A particular university may have a wider range of differing building types with more
diverse operational needs than most other organizations (Amaratunga and Baldry,
2000). The pace of change affecting buildings, primarily through technological and
economic influences, is likely to increase rather than slow down (Weller, 1995).
Proliferation and diversity of technology, adaptation of sharing facilities and greater
emphasis on quality in the study place are some of the potential implications of the
changes for universities (Belcher, 1997). Globally, the massive expansion in higher
education and integration of FM into their managerial goal has forced most universities
to achieve more economic use of their facilities (Clarke, 1997). Therefore, a university,
like any other organization, is trying to improve its efficiency in the face of rising
operating costs and increasing user expectations (Varcoe, 1996). This has led
performance assessment to become a common and formal part of the FM process
(Amaratunga, 2000; Amaratunga and Baldry, 2002) in most organizations and even in
higher educational facilities.
Organizations and institutions often fail to recognize the importance of FM to their
business performance and success (Lavy, 2008). FM as a practice has grown from what
was traditionally perceived to be the mere managing of buildings or maintenance unit of
an organization to the holistic reality of being woven into the core and support services
of organizations (Price and Pitt, 2011). FM has found wide applications in Nigeria;
government agencies, corporations and non-profit institutions have realized that
managing these functions within traditional organizational structures is unsatisfactory
(Sani, 1998). The practice of management of buildings to secure optimum returns has
been dominant (Adewunmi et al., 2009), and Adewunmi et al. (2009) further confirm that
the practice in general has been focussed on management of buildings for their own sake
and as investment to secure optimum returns. The FM practice in the Nigerian
JFM universities are often facilitated by the management units in the universities, although
13,1 they are, in some cases, merged with the directorate of works or the physical planning
units (Ikediashi et al., 2012).
NUC (2006) reveals that both academic and physical facilities at the Nigerian
universities were in deplorable states. Ikediashi et al. (2012) affirm that in the early days
of Nigerian universities, there were enough facilities for both students and staff, and
8 funding for teaching, research and even community service was adequate. The story has
changed dramatically over the years (Ekundayo and Ajayi, 2009). In South East Asia,
Moore and Finch (2004) identify developmental issues like globalization, information
technology, employee expectations, regional economy, property market, general
business environment, market maturity and procurement systems as factors that
influence the growth of FM in the region. However, the key challenge to FM in Nigerian
universities is poor funding, lack of awareness, lack of proper regulation, etc. (Ikediashi
et al., 2012) and overcrowding (Onyeneye, 2006; Adegbite, 2007).
Against this background, the major question of this study is: what is the level of FM
practices in the Nigerian university system, especially the public who have been in
existence for a considerable number of decades. Hence, the paper examines FM practices
in the selected first-generation universities in Nigeria with the view to sensitize the
administrators and stakeholders on the current practice of facilities in public
universities in Nigeria. To achieve this aim, this paper identified and examined the FM
practices and factors influencing FM practices and explored strategies for improving
FM of public universities in Nigeria.

Rationale for educational FM

The environment created for the occupants of a facility influences the performance of the
activities carried out in that facility (Gagendran, 2000). FM is based on the premises that
the efficiency of any organization is linked to the physical environment in which it
operates and that the environment can be improved to increase efficiency. The function
of FM is really a bridge between the changing workplaces and users (Alexander, 1996).
Hence, organizations, in general, desire facilities that are comfortable to occupy,
cost-effective and efficient to run, and that those facilities should remain as added value
assets (Douglas, 1996).
The educational system has undergone tremendous changes in the form of its
philosophy, broadened goals and objectives, new approaches to services delivery,
quantum leap in school enrolment, multiplicity of curricula programmes and
extra-curricular activities, introduction of information and communication technology
and expanded academic support services, increased size of the academics and
non-academics and modern community design (Asiabaka, 2008). The quality of
education that children receive bears direct relevance to the availability/lack of physical
facilities and overall atmosphere in which learning takes place; these facilities play a
pivotal role in the actualization of the educational objectives by satisfying the physical
and emotional needs of both the staff and students (Nwagwu, 1978; Ogunsaju, 2000).
Knezevich (1975) emphasizes that the physical needs are met through provision of safe
structure, adequate sanitary facilities, a balanced visual environment, an appropriate
thermal environment and sufficient shelter space for work and play. However,
emotional needs are met by creating pleasant surroundings, a friendly atmosphere and
an inspiring environment. However, with the quantum leap in school enrolment,
increasing number of academic programmes and limited resources, flexibility must be Facilities
an integral part of the planning process, and facilities should be established such that management
they will serve new functions in future (Asiabaka, 2008). practices
Research reveal that only on rare occasions do facilities receive explicit attentions for
management (Debenham Tewson Research, 1992; Graham Bannock and Partners, 1994;
Workplace Management, 1996 cited in Then, 1999). Rose et al. (2007) identify one of the
major problems faced by US universities and colleges as the initial planning, design and 9
construction costs of a facility […] consume so much time and labour that the long-term
impacts of actually operating the buildings are deferred to a later time and left for others
to worry about. However, once conceived and built, these facilities take on a life of their
own – often a very long and even permanent life – which requires costs that far exceeded
initial design and construction. Kowalski (1983) cited in Asiabaka (2008) reports that
educational facilities in the USA are not only ageing but are also not keeping pace with
technological and societal changes. He states that “educational facilities like other
material resources are consumable. In time, they are used up and must be replaced or
revitalized.” In an era of declining resources and changes in educational programmes, it
is essential that those individuals responsible for solving educational facility problems
understand the FM issues if we are to effectively meet the needs of future generations of
students.
FM is an aspect of education system that is generally being overlooked in Nigeria,
and when new buildings are constructed and taken over by the appropriate authorities,
practically no attention is paid to the maintenance of such buildings (Asiabaka, 2008).
Several educational buildings built for half a decade have never undergone renovation
or any form of modernization despite the changes in the educational system. Over the
years, most educational administrators/managers complained that physical facilities
available for academic and non-academic activities are grossly inadequate, majority are
regarded as architecturally obsolete; they could no longer satisfy present day
educational needs and, therefore, cannot contribute to functional learning (Asiabaka,
2008). Educational Facilities Laboratories (1968) describes such facilities as rigid,
inaccessible, sterile, formal, isolated, stark, immobile and permanent. Hence,
educational buildings, especially in the universities, need rapt attention in terms of
provision of functioning facilities to meet the increasing demands for higher education
in Nigeria.
Amaratunga and Baldry (2000) assess FM performance in higher education
properties; the study presents the characteristics of important aspects of a performance
evacuation approach related to higher education properties and discusses the
framework based on the balanced scorecard to measure performance relating to higher
education establishment. Lavy (2008) investigated the FM practices in higher education
buildings with a case study in the USA and established that the structured and
organized FM has the potential to improve the physical performance and appearance of
a building and its systems, as well as increase the user’s level of satisfaction and
improve efficiency with which the building is maintained and operated.
Chandrashekaran and Gopalakrishnan’s (2008) study in the USA appraises
maintenance risk reduction for an effective FM. The paper examined the physical
conditions and maintenance deficiencies of heating ventilation and air conditioning type
of equipment using failure checkpoint, found out that the tool helped to assess
JFM checkpoints on the components and identified the potential risk component and its
13,1 impact.
Khazraei and Duese (2011) evaluated a strategic standpoint on maintenance
taxonomy, and the paper offers a new methodical classification of maintenance, which
has a strong scientific foundation and can be commonly accepted as a standard in the
field of maintenance and FM. The study of Lind and Muyingo (2011) in Sweden
10 evaluates building maintenance strategies with focus on planning under uncertainty.
The paper establishes that there are a number of specific uncertainties that affect
building maintenance planning which make more detailed long-term plans less
meaningful. The paper proposes a new structure for long-term strategies and goals for
various buildings/components and a short-run adjustment when new information is
available. Hebert and Chaney’s (2011) paper focusses on enhancing FM through
generational awareness, and the study affirms that the knowledge of generational
differences was unimportant and suggested that a successful management of
generational differences in the workplace has the potential to improve the efficiency and
viability of an enterprise including facilitating knowledge management. Ali (2009)
appraises cost decision-making in building maintenance practice in Malaysia and
concludes that maintenance performance emanates from the insufficient allocation of
maintenance cost. Factors considered in the allocation of maintenance costs are
availability of funding, client’s preference and economic situation.
In Nigeria, Odediran et al. (2012) evaluated the maintenance practices among users of
residential buildings. The study found that most of the buildings do not have a
maintenance manual, and the economy is a major factor affecting the practice of
maintenance among users. Ikediashi et al. (2012) appraise the FM practice in South–
South region of Nigeria. The study explored the level of awareness of FM and factors
influencing the practice. They further evaluate the outsourcing of FM services in
Nigeria’s public universities (Ikediashi et al., 2012). Adewunmi et al. (2009) appraise
factors influencing the role of Nigerian estate surveyors in FM and establish that
training in FM and type of the organization managed by the estate surveyor are
significant factors that influence estate surveyors’ participation in the areas of core
competence in FM. Asiabaka (2008) examines the need for an effective facility
management in schools in Nigeria. The paper suggests the methodologies for FM and
that there is a relationship between the quality of the educational facilities and the
quality of the products of the institution. Adenuga et al. (2007) assessed factors affecting
maintenance management of public hospital buildings in Lagos State Nigeria. The
study ranked insufficiency of fund for maintenance programmes as a significant factor
among others. It appears that there is a paucity of research works that evaluate FM with
respect to its practices, factors influencing the practices and strategies for sustaining
institutional facilities in the Nigerian public institutions of learning.

Factors influencing FM practices

Maintaining new buildings, renovating and modernizing the old ones require
considerable expertise and commitment of human and material resources. This is
because changes in weather conditions and lack of maintenance culture are responsible
for the ageing and deterioration of educational buildings and equipments (Lind and
Muyingo, 2012). However, most educational administrators/managers who constantly
use educational facilities lack the knowledge of facilities maintenance planning.
Consequently, they fail to integrate facility maintenance into the general management, Facilities
and repairs take place only when problems arise because of the break down of the management
existing facility. The most fundamental problem in FM is lack of policy guidelines for
infrastructural development in educational facilities (Asiabaka, 2008). This policy is
practices
what Sergiovanni et al. (1980) cited in Asiabaka (2008) describe as authoritative
communication of expected behaviour for individuals in certain positions under specific
conditions. The 21st Century School Fund (2005) states that the policy agenda should 11
entail an increase in public participation in facilities planning, improve FM including
maintenance and improvement programme and secure adequate and equitable facilities
funding.
Chandrashekaran and Gopalakrishnan (2008) report that a lack of insufficient
organizations in FM is a major factor influencing FM, and this usually leads to
postponement of major repairs and replacements of facilities. Others include a lack of
centralized information on the assessment of deficiencies and conditions appraisal of the
facilities, and these make the maintenance projects to be carried out at the cost of critical
replacements and repairs. In the USA, lack of action towards the initial planning, design
and construction costs of a facility is the key challenge to FM in universities and colleges
(Rose et al., 2007).
In Nigeria, Adewunmi et al. (2009) investigated ranges of factors that influence
the participation of estate surveyors and valuers (property managers) in FM.
Although the study was not directed at educational institutions, it was found that
training in FM and type of business of the organization were significant factors that
influence surveyors’ participation in areas of core competence in FM. Green and
Price (2000), Omirin (2000) and Ojo (2002) impliedly identify size of an estate and
type of business of an organization as parts of the influencing factor for professional
participation in FM. Kortze and Nkado (2003) and Buys and Tonono (2007) opine
that the training, environmental policies/legislation and FM expertise are necessary
to create a very good working environment for cost control services and monitoring
of performance of FM services in order to ensure an effective economic climate of the
country. Solomon and Cloete (2006), Ojo (2002) and Buys and Tonono (2007) consider
the extent of contracting out of service, physical features of facility, the existing
culture of an organization and client demands/expectations as parts of the factors
influencing FM practice. It is important to state that most of the foregoing studies
were not situated within tertiary institutions.
Moreover, developmental issues like globalization, information technology,
employee expectations, regional economy, property market, general business
environment, market maturity and procurement systems are the prevailing factors in
South East Asia (Moore and Finch, 2004). Asiabaka (2008) also indicates that lack of
knowledge of managerial processes, nonchalant or passive attitudes to facilities
decaying, unavailability of trained experts, lack of adequate skills and inadequate
funding are prevailing factors influencing FM practices, especially in Nigeria. This
reinforced the opinion of Adenuga et al. (2007) that maintenance management in the
public sector has suffered from lack of funds and general neglect of the buildings for a
considerable time. Onifade (2003) report that overcrowding has also led to the
deterioration of the facilities installed, while Adenuga and Iyagba (2005) equally affirm
that public buildings are in poor and deplorable structural and decorative conditions
because they are left as soon as commissioned to face premature but steady and rapid
JFM deterioration, decay and dilapidation without formal arrangements for management.
13,1 Furthermore, factors identified by Ikediashi et al. (2012) that influence FM in South–
South Nigeria include lack of awareness, proper regulation and quality control. Others
include process of procurement, dearth of skill/manpower, mistrust between managers
and service providers, type of employer, political barrier/government intervention and
personal and labour issues.
12
Strategies for improving universities’ facilities
The development of broad educational goals and specific objectives that will encompass
FM is equally fundamental. An effective FM plan ought to commence with the
educational philosophy that serves the needs of the individual in a dynamic and
knowledge-based economy. The need for FM in university educational facilities cannot
be overemphasized. The management responsibilities in FM require collective efforts
and management processes which involve planning, organizing, decision-making,
leading, coordinating and controlling (Asiabaka, 2008). The broadened educational
goals and objectives as a result of changes in socio-economic development have
necessitated the involvement of several minds in the FM process. It also requires
experts’ input from a wide range of stakeholders and collaborative efforts, which
facilitate new ideas and perspectives in FM.
Dror (1967) establishes that planning is the process of preparing a set of decisions for
action in the future directed at achieving goals by optional means. Therefore, a plan for
FM must be an integral part of the overall organizational/institutional master plan
which should include budget priorities for FM. Lavy (2008) reported that facilities
managers face the challenges of planning and adapting the existing buildings to meet
educational requirements and maintaining them to attain the longest and most
cost-effective life from the facilities. Strategic planning must also be accorded priority
for institutional facilities to be sustained which should encompass critical stages (Atkin
and Brooks, 2003). This plan should cover assemblies of all relevant facts about the
organization’s objectives, needs and policies, a review of resources processes, systems
and the physical assets themselves, together with their attributes in terms of space,
functions and utilization. The second is the solution stage which assembles criteria for
judging options, evaluating these against the objectives of the organization and
develops the facility management strategy. Implementation stage completes the
strategy development process through the establishment of an implementable plan that
incorporates the key elements of procurement, training and, importantly,
communication (Atkin and Brooks, 2003).
Facility performance appraisal is becoming a formal and regular operation
(Amaratunga and Baldry, 2000). Performance optimization in FM should allow the
indoor environment to support organizational business goals in the most effective,
efficient and equitable way. As FM becomes a statement of the actions (process) by
which organizations deliver and sustain quality services in built environments (space)
to meet strategic needs of stakeholders (people), it ensures buildings, system supports
and core operations contribute to business achievements, despite changing conditions.
A complete facility assessment report contains information on the existing
conditions, the residual service life of components, funding documents concerning
long- and short-term maintenance and renewal forecasts and recommendations
(Setzer and Zuschlag, 1995; Toro, 1995; Marteinsson, 2003). In addition, facility
auditing must also be given a priority because planning cannot be meaningfully carried Facilities
out without accurate information which should be collected through facility auditing management
(Asiabaka, 2008). Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities (2003) cited in
Asiabaka (2008) describes facility audit as a comprehensive inventory of educational
practices
facilities that provides a standard method for establishing baseline information about
the components, policies and procedures of a new or existing facility. The facility audit
also helps planners, managers and staff know what is available, its conditions, service 13
history, maintenance needs and location; provides facts not guess work to inform plans
for maintaining and improving educational facilities; establishes a baseline for
measuring facilities maintenance progress; and allows an in-depth analysis of product
life cycles to occur on a routine basis.
Outsourcing of FM services in the universities has the capacity to improve the overall
service delivery in the universities and has already gained wide acceptance among the
universities globally (Ikediashi et al., 2012). The International Association of
Outsourcing Professionals reports that the global outsourcing industry is presently
worth over $1 trillion annually with India capturing a lion share of the market (the 2010
Global Outsourcing 100, 2010 cited in Ikediashi et al., 2012).

Methodology
The study area
The study was conducted in 2012 at first-generation universities in Nigeria
including the Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife, formerly known as University of
Ife, which was recently ranked first and the best research university in Nigeria. The
second was the University of Ibadan (University College) and was the first university in
Nigeria emanated from London University and was also ranked as the sixth university
in Nigeria. The Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife and the University of Ibadan were
established in 1962 and 1948, respectively, with qualitatively built infrastructure and
architecture master piece which validate their suitability for this study.

Research design
The study examines the FM practices in the Nigerian public universities with the
following three research questions:
RQ1: What are specific FM practices in the Nigerian public universities?
RQ2: What are the factors influencing the FM practices?
RQ3: What FM strategies are available for improving conditions of facilities in the
Nigerian public universities?
The data were collected through questionnaires administered on members of staff in
charge of FM. The target population included members of staff who are working in
various departments/units charge with FM functions including architects, quantity
surveyors, estate surveyors and valuers, engineers, builders, etc. They are working
in the works and maintenance department, parks and gardens department, power
section and physical planning and development unit. The sample size for the study
was selected using random sampling technique to obtain the opinions of the
respondents on the questions raised by this study. A total of 130 copies of
JFM questionnaire were distributed, and 72 were retrieved (i.e. 55 per cent response rate);
13,1 the response rate was considered adequate and used for the analysis. The adequacy
of the questionnaire was based on how respondents completed the questions raised
and quick return for analysis purpose.
The study data were collected by administering copies of questionnaire to the
respondents in their various offices within the universities. The instrument
14 (questionnaire) developed from the literature reviewed was divided into two sections,
accompanied by a covering letter to introduce the research focus and instructions to be
followed by the respondents. Section A examined the demographic information about
the respondents including their designation, employment status, academic and
professional qualifications and years of work experiences. Section B addressed the
questions raised under specific objectives of the study with closed responses on a rating
scale of 1-5, where 1 and 5 represent the least and highest rank values, respectively. Data
collected were analysed using both the descriptive and inferential statistics including
percentage, mean score and ANOVA, respectively.
The percentage shows the ratio of the responses among some of the demographic
characteristics and personal profile of the respondents. This includes their job
categories, job position, academic and professional qualifications and work experiences
within the university system. ANOVA was also used to examine the level of significance
of the research constructs. These include FM practices, factors influencing FM practices
and strategies for improving condition of facilities within the study area.

Results and discussions

Respondents’ background information
Table I describes the demographic information of the respondents, which includes
employees of tertiary institutions (Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife and University
of Ibadan, Ibadan) in Nigeria and members of various professionals bodies in the
Nigerian construction industry. The professional bodies include Nigerian Society of
Engineers, Nigerian Institute of Building, Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors,
Nigerian Institute of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Nigerian Institute of Architects and
other allied professional bodies. The socio-economic characteristics assessed include
their job categories, job position, academic and professional qualifications and work
experiences within the university system. Table I indicates that 29 respondents (39.7 per
cent) are technical officers of the works and maintenance departments and other allied
departments within the institutions. Of all respondents, 22 (30.1 per cent) are staff in the
managerial positions within the universities. This result shows that the universities
have more technical than managerial members of staff. The outcome of the assessment
of managerial officers shows that 27 (37 per cent) are senior managerial officers, 19 (26.0
per cent) are managerial officers and 18 (24.7 per cent) are principal officers. The
assessment of technical officers indicates that 32 (43.8 per cent) are senior technical
officers, 17 (23.3 per cent) are principal officers and 11 (15.1 per cent) and 101 (13.7 per
cent) are senior and chief technical officers, respectively. The result shows that there are
more experienced technical than managerial officers in FM practices within the
universities.
The designation of the respondents was also examined in the Table I, and the result
shows that 26 (35.6 per cent), 12 (16.4 per cent), 9 (12.3 per cent), 7 (9.4 per cent) and 6 (8.3
per cent) are engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, estate surveyors and valuers and
Categories of respondent Frequency (%)
Facilities
management
Technical officer 29 39.7
Managerial officer 22 30.1
practices
Users 22 30.1
Total 73 100.0
Position of facilities managerial officer
Chief officer 1 1.4 15
Assistant chief officer 8 11.0
Principal officer 18 24.7
Senior officer 27 37.0
Facilities officer 19 26.0
Total 73 100.0
Position of facilities technical officer
Chief officer 10 13.7
Assistant chief officer 11 15.1
Principal officer 17 23.3
Senior officer 32 43.8
Facilities officer 3 4.1
Total 73 100.0
Designation of facilities managerial/technical officer
Engineer 26 35.6
Builder 6 8.3
Quantity surveyor 9 12.3
Architect 12 16.4
Estate surveyors and valuers 7 9.6
Others 13 17.8
Total 73 100.0
Academic qualification of facilities managerial/technical officer
PhD – –
MSc 7 9.6
BSc 28 38.4
HND/PGD 29 39.7
National diploma 9 12.3
Total 73 100.0
Professional qualification of facilities managerial/technical officer
MNSE 17 23.3
MNIOB 4 5.5
MNIQS 6 8.3
MNIA 5 6.9
MNIESV 4 5.5
Others 37 50.7
Total 73 100.0
Years of work experience of the facilities managerial/technical officers
Above 30 years 11 15.1
20-30 years 16 21.9
10-20 years 38 52.1
Below 10 years 8 11.0
Total 73 100.0
Table I.
Notes: MNSE, Member of Nigeria Society of Engineers; MNIOB, Member of Nigeria Institute of Background
Builders; MNIA, Member of Nigeria Institute of Architect; MNIESV, Member of Nigeria Institution of information of the
Estate Surveyors and Valuers respondents
JFM builders, respectively. In all, 13 (17.8 per cent) are from the allied professions working in
13,1 the works and maintenance departments of the universities. The result further shows
the highest academic qualification of the respondents. None of them had PhDs; 7 (9.6 per
cent) are holders of Master of Science/Technology, 28 (38.4 per cent) hold Bachelor of
Science/Technology, 29 (39.7 per cent) hold Higher National Diploma (HND)/
Postgraduate Diploma (PGD) and 9 (12.3 per cent) hold National Diploma. These
16 respondents’ academic qualifications are considered adequate which makes the
outcome of their responses reliable information.
The level of professionalism of the respondents was appraised, and the result
obtained indicates that 17 (23.3 per cent), 4 (5.5 per cent), 6 (8.3 per cent), 5 (6.9 per cent)
and 4 (5.5 per cent) were members of Nigerian Society of Engineers, Nigerian Institute of
Building, Nigerian Institute Quantity Surveyors, Nigerian Institute of Architect and
Nigerian Institute of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, respectively. A total of 37 (50.7 per
cent) respondents indicated that they are not fully registered members of their
professional bodies or belong to other allied professional bodies. This shows that a
majority of the respondents are registered members of various professional bodies. The
non-qualified ones are either under training or awaiting professional induction by the
various professional institutes. Another major factor that could influence the reliability
of their responses is their years of works experience. The result affirms that 11 (15.1 per
cent), 16 (21.9 per cent), 38 (52.1 per cent) and 8 (11.0 per cent) had work experience above
30 years, 20-30 years, 10-20 years and below 10 years, respectively.

FM practices
The approach to the management of facilities within the selected universities was also
considered over the years of existence of the universities. Table II illustrates the FM
practices within the selected universities, and the result obtained ranks reactive as the
FM practice often adopt with mean score 3.80, followed by reliability-centred practice,
predictive and preventive FM practices with mean scores of 3.43, 3.39 and 3.27,
respectively, and the least ranked was proactive/planned maintenance with mean score
of 2.95. The result implies that as old as these universities were, they have not adopted
a result-oriented FM practice over the years such as being proactive. It shows that the
universities allow facilities to break down before taking a probable action to restore it
back to its original state and standard. This is clear from the fact that reactive was
ranked high as the most frequent practice by the universities in the management of their
facilities. The assessment of the level of significance of these practices also shows that
the highest ranked practices are equally significance at p ⱕ 0.005.
Although Price and Pitt (2011) argue that FM as a practice has grown from
traditional management of buildings or maintenance unit of an organization;

FM practices Mean SD F Significance

Reactive 3.80 2.21117 5.600 0.002

Reliability centred 3.43 1.87763 4.735 0.005
Predictive 3.39 2.35484 3.757 0.015
Preventive 3.27 1.97386 8.693 0.000
Table II. Corrective 3.23 1.89678 2.069 0.112
FM practices Proactive/planned 2.95 1.89949 8.742 0.000
Lavy (2008) also reports that most organizations and institutions often fail to recognize Facilities
this importance of facility management to their business performance and success Lavy management
(2008). FM in Nigeria is equally reported to have wide applications because traditional
management system structures are unsatisfactory (Sani, 1998). Hence, despite the fact
practices
that the practice of management of buildings to secure optimum returns has been
dominant in Nigeria (Adewunmi et al., 2009), the FM units/departments in the Nigerian
universities are passive to innovation. Adewunmi et al. (2009) further confirms that the 17
practice, in general, has focussed on the management of buildings for investment
purposes.

Factors influencing FM
Table III also examines the factors influencing the choice of FM practices often adopted
in the selected institution. State of deterioration of facilities was ranked first as the most
influencing factor with a mean score of 4.10. The findings are not quite surprising
because the evaluation of infrastructure state of universities by Nigerian Universities
Commission NUC (2006) reveals that physical academic facilities in the Nigerian
universities are in deplorable states. This was supported by a study of Asiabaka (2008)
who reports that available facilities in most educational systems are regarded as
obsolete and that several educational buildings that are over 50 years old have never
undergone any form of renovation or modernization despite changes in the educational
system. Kowalski (1983) equally reports that educational facilities in the USA are not
only ageing but are also faced with technological and societal changes. Rose et al. (2007)
also confirms the US situation that once most of these facilities were conceived and built,
however, they often take on a life of their own, often a very long and even permanent life.

Factor Mean SD F Significance

State of deterioration of facilities 4.10 0.74841 7.586 0.000

Level of technology for FM 4.06 0.62116 11.581 0.000
Financing/funding 3.86 1.27274 8.086 0.000
Implementation of policies 3.69 1.17706 16.059 0.000
Age of the facilities 3.67 1.11871 11.942 0.000
Obsolescence of facilities 3.59 1.01154 10.451 0.000
Attitude of users and misuse of facilities 3.55 1.11854 6.244 0.001
Poor maintenance culture 3.53 1.22568 2.702 0.052
Private public partnership initiative 3.48 1.15602 11.064 0.000
Users’ knowledge of FM 2.75 1.12769 4.285 0.008
Policy guiding FM 2.64 1.33718 5.853 0.001
Size of plants and equipments 2.63 1.03423 2.159 0.101
Design scopes and concepts 2.52 1.10692 4.800 0.004
Knowledge of FM by the administrator 2.44 1.29085 10.694 0.000
Training and development of personnel 2.43 1.33248 7.258 0.000
Weather conditions 2.37 1.27483 12.649 0.000
Quality of components and materials 2.18 0.73300 5.155 0.003
Adequacy of information for FM 2.06 1.10416 6.555 0.001
Skill status of managerial and technical officers 1.96 0.94924 2.261 0.089 Table III.
Administrators’ human relation skill to Factors influencing
assemble and utilize relevant FM personnel 1.95 0.83150 5.393 0.002 FM practices
JFM Asiabaka (2008) substantiates that changes in weather conditions and lack of
13,1 maintenance culture are responsible for the ageing and deterioration of educational
buildings, as well as facilities and equipment in Nigeria. However, repairs take place
only when problems arise because of break down of the existing facility.
Other significant factors are level of technology, financing/funding, problem of
implementation of policies, age of the facilities, obsolescence of the facilities,
18 attitudes of the users and misuses of facilities and poor maintenance culture with
mean scores of 4.06, 3.86, 3.69, 3.67, 3.59, 3.55 and 3.53, respectively. These were
equally supported by evidence from previous studies; Adenuga et al. (2007) reported
that maintenance management in the public sector in Nigeria has suffered from lack
of funds for a considerable time, and most of the older public buildings are now in
the state of general neglect. Onifade (2003) also supports that overcrowding has also
led to the deterioration of the facilities installed. Overcrowding, according to
Asiabaka (2008), has resulted in overstretching of the facilities provided because of
the increasing number of students as compared with the low population rate that the
facilities were originally meant for Ali’s (2009) study in Malaysia also concludes that
maintenance performance is affected mostly from insufficient allocation of
maintenance cost and funding.
Odediran et al. (2012) confirm that economy is the major factor that affects the
practice of maintenance, and there is a poor maintenance culture among facilities’ users
in Nigeria. Asiabaka (2008) also identifies lack of policy guidelines for infrastructural
development, lack of knowledge of managerial processes, nonchalant or passive
attitudes to facilities decaying, unavailability of trained experts, lack of adequate skills
and inadequate funding as fundamental factors influencing FM practice in Nigeria.
Insufficient funds, as well as lack of centralized information on the conditions of the
facilities, lead to postponement of FM practices such as major repairs and replacements
(Chandrashekaran and Gopalakrishnan, 2008). Adenuga et al. (2007) also reinforce this
finding and submit that maintenance management in the public sector has suffered from
lack of funds and general neglect of the buildings for a considerable time. Onifade (2003)
agrees that overcrowding has led to the deterioration of the public facilities Ikediashi
et al. (2012) establish lack of awareness and lack of proper regulation and quality control
as significant factors.
The least ranked was human skill relation of the administrators of FM with a mean
score of 1.95, followed by skill status of managerial and technical officers and adequacy
of information available in FM with mean scores of 1.96 and 2.06, respectively. These
were low because based on personal information supplied by the FM officers within
these universities, the FM officers have adequate academic and professional
qualifications coupled with many years of work experience. The applicability of these
characteristics of the FM officers could have been influenced by the type of FM practice
in operation within these universities. Further assessment classified these factors into
how critical they are to FM practices. The classification of these factors is most critical,
more critical and least critical. Table IV shows how critical the identified factors are, and
this was determined by ranking the mean scores. The most critical factors are those with
mean scores not less than 3.50 on a rating scale of 5.00. The more critical factors are
those with mean scores ranging from 3.49 to 2.50, while the least critical factors were
those with mean scores less than 2.50.
Most critical factors
State of deterioration of
facilities
Level of technology available
for FM
Financing/funding
Implementation policies
Age of the facilities
Obsolescence of facilities
Attitude of users and misuse of
facilities
Poor maintenance culture
State of deterioration of
facilities
More critical factors
Private public partnership
initiative
Users’ knowledge of FM
Policy guiding FM
Size of plants and equipments
Design scopes and concepts
Least critical factor
Facilities
management
Knowledge of FM by the practices
administrator
Training and development
of personnel
Weather conditions
Quality of components and
19
materials
Adequacy of information for
facility management
Skill status of managerial
and technical officers
Human relation skill of the
administrators in FM
Knowledge of FM by the Table IV.
administrator Criticality of factors
Training and development influencing FM
of personnel practices

Strategies for improving FM practices

Table V explains the strategies available for improving condition of facilities within
those institutions. The result obtained rank outsourcing of technical personnel as most
widely used in the Nigerian public universities with a mean score of 4.90. The
outsourcing of technical personnel was ranked high because major components of these
facilities are procured internationally and installed by experts. However, most of the
present day technical officers might not have the adequate skills to handle certain
components of these facilities. In the case of the need for repair or replacement, there
might be a need to outsource the technical experts with appropriate skills. This finding
was supported by Ikediashi et al. (2012) who report that outsourcing of FM services in
the universities has the capacity to improve the overall service delivery in the
universities. They reported that these have already gained wide acceptance among the
universities globally. Amaratunga and Baldry (2000) also report that facility
performance appraisal is becoming a formal and regular operation. This was further
supported by Regnier who advocates the need for team effort (alliance) of facilities
planners and capital budget analysts, administrators, academic staff and fiscal and
institutional research personnel for such innovation to be achieved.

FM improvement strategies Mean SD F Significance

Outsourcing of technical personnel 4.90 1.58258 2.224 0.093

Enhanced managerial goals and objectives 4.78 2.02928 15.529 0.000
Facilities inspection 4.69 1.47080 6.187 0.001
FM plans 4.69 1.15322 8.286 0.000
Facilities auditing 4.58 1.77887 2.762 0.049 Table V.
Whole and part evacuation of damaged component 4.27 1.90219 11.572 0.000 Strategies for
Services and equipment replacement 3.95 2.06081 7.456 0.000 improving FM
Strategic planning 3.88 1.72357 13.852 0.000 practices
JFM Others potential strategies are enhanced managerial goals and objectives, facilities
13,1 inspection, FM plans, facilities auditing and whole and part evacuation of damaged
component with mean scores of 4.78, 4.69, 4.69, 4.58, 4.27 and 3.95, respectively. The
least ranked was strategic planning and alliance even though it had a high mean score
of 3.88 on the scale of 5.00. The assessment of the level of significance of strategies for
improving facilities conditions shows that the highest ranked strategies are equally
20 significance at p ⱕ 0.005. These findings were supported by previous studies; Lavy
(2008) reports that facilities managers are often faced with the challenges of planning
and adapting existing buildings to meet educational requirements and maintaining
them to attain the longest and most cost-effective life from the facilities. Pathirage et al.
(2008) establish that formulation of strategy, implementation of techniques and
evaluation of performance are imperative in knowledge management practices in
facilities organizations. Lind and Muyingo (2011), in Sweden, establish that there are a
number of specific uncertainties that affect building maintenance planning which make
more detailed, long-term plans less meaningful. Hebert and Chaney (2011) also suggest
that successful management of generational differences in the workplace has the
potential to improve the efficiency and viability of an enterprise including facilitating
knowledge management.
Asiabaka (2008) establishes that the broadened educational goals and objectives
necessitated the involvement of several minds and experts’ input from wide ranges of
knowledge in the FM process and collaborative efforts which bring into FM new ideas
and perspectives. Dror (1967) establishes that a plan for FM must be an integral part of
the overall organizational/institutional master plan which should include budget
priorities for FM. An FM plan must start with the educational philosophy that serves the
needs of the individual in a dynamic and knowledge-based economy (Asiabaka, 2008).
Asiabaka (2008) finds out that without accurate information, which should be collected
through facility auditing planning of managerial officers, FM will be a meaningless
endeavour. Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities (2003) states that the
facility audit provides information on the status of educational facilities which will
assist facilities officers in the planning processes and appropriate steps to be taken from
time to time.
Whitford (2006) affirms that understanding the existing conditions in which the
systems and components of buildings serve is a critical aspect of FM. This is because
facility management is a “process used to identify, evaluate and report the condition of
buildings, grounds, utilities, and equipment” (Kaiser, 1989). A complete facility
assessment report contains information on the existing conditions, the residual service
life of components, funding documents concerning long- and short-term maintenance
and renewal forecasts and recommendations (Setzer and Zuschlag, 1995; Toro, 1995;
Marteinsson, 2003). Atkin and Brooks (2003) outline that strategic planning must also be
accorded priority for institutional facilities to be sustained.
Management of facilities is a composition of both the technical and managerial
strategies. The technical strategy oversees the practical aspects of
damages/deterioration to the facilities, while the managerial strategy makes policies
as guides for technical experts at any point in time. This makes enhanced
managerial goals and objectives to be ranked second because if the managers fail to
improve their goals and objectives to enhance facilities, the technical officers have
no direction for operation. Therefore, it is imperative for managers of FM to
formulate time-bound goals and objectives for the purpose of enhancing the Facilities
conditions of facilities and practice of FM. The third ranked strategy was facilities management
inspection which is more of technical in function than managerial. This is essential
because it will enable the managerial officers to know the state of the facilities. The
practices
outcome is the audit report of the conditions of facilities, and this will assist to
formulate time-bound policies. FM plans are also essential for improving FM
practices because he who fails to plan has planned to fail. Therefore, a management 21
plan is needed to guide both the technical and managerial officers on what is
expected of them in terms of the facilities performance within the institutions over a
period of time. Facilities auditing is a process of assessing the state of facilities for
the purpose of determining the appropriate steps to improve conditions. However,
for relevant and productive FM activities to be carried out, it becomes imperative to
ascertain the conditions of those facilities. Sometimes, damage to some facilities get
to the point of non-repair, and such components could affect the efficient
performance of the whole system. Where such case exists, removal of the affected/
defective component is essential for sustaining the efficacy of facilities in an
organization. Finally, strategic planning is equally essential because the
methodology applicable in the management of a particular component in a facility
might not be wholly applicable to the same component in another facility. Therefore,
the FM officers must be proactive and non-compliance in their goals setting and
planning for efficient FM practices.

Conclusion
It is established that there is a direct relationship between how educational facilities
function and the quality of knowledge acquired by the students under a particular
facilities condition. This paper examines FM practices in the Nigerian public
universities. It concludes that the universities have more technical than the managerial
officers with adequate skills, knowledge and experience in FM. These FM officers also
have adequate academic qualifications. Reasonable numbers among them are registered
members of their various professional bodies, and a majority of them have work
experience of not less than 10 years. The study also confirms that a reactive FM practice
is mostly adopted by the universities in the management of their facilities, regardless of
their years of existence. The result-oriented practice, like proactive, is least adopted in
the Nigerian universities. The most critical factors influencing the adoption of result FM
practices are deterioration of facilities, low level of technology, poor funding and poor
policy implementation. Evaluation of possible strategies that could be harnessed by
facilities managers in enhancing the conditions of universities facilities advocates a
need to outsource technical personnel. Other significant strategies are enhancing
managerial goals and objectives of the institutions, engaging in productive facilities
inspection, formulating time-bound FM plans, providing guidelines for facilities
auditing which will provide timely information for facilities officers and engaging in
strategic planning and alliance for improving the conditions of facilities in the Nigerian
universities. This study, with supports of the existing literature, concludes that FM
practice in the Nigerian universities is still passive (actions are taken after facilities
break down), most of these facilities are obsolete and are in deplorable conditions, FM
practices still face challenges of poor funding of universities educations and that there is
a lack of FM policies/problem of implementing policies in the Nigerian universities
JFM management system. FM is only considered as an ad hoc activity in the Nigerian
13,1 university education.

References
21st Century School Fund (2005), “Recommended policies for public school facilities”, Public
22 School Facilities Management Policies, Washington, DC.
Adegbite, J.B.O. (2007), “The education reform agenda: challenges for tertiary education
administration in Nigeria”, a paper presentation at the sixth annual seminar of conference
of Registrars of colleges of education in Nigeria (south west zone), College of education,
Ikere-Ekiti, Nigeria.
Adenuga, O.A., Odusami, K.T. and Faremi, J.O. (2007), “Assessment of factors influencing
maintenance management of public hospitals in Lagos state Nigeria”, The Construction
and Building Research Conference (COBRA) of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, 6-7 September.
Adenuga, O.A. and Iyagba, R.O.A. (2005), “Strategic approach to maintenance practices for public
buildings in Lagos state”, Journal of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Environmental
Sciences, University of Lagos, Vol. 5 No. 1.
Adewunmi, Y., Ajayi, C. and Ogunba, O. (2009), “Facilities management: factors influencing the
role of Nigerian estate surveyors”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 246-258.
Alexander, K. (1996), Facilities Management, Chapman & Hall, London.
Ali, A.S. (2009), “Cost decision making in building maintenance practice in Malaysia”, Journal of
Facilities Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 298-306.
Amaratunga, A. and Baldry, D. (2000), “Assessment of facilities management performance in
higher education properties”, Facilities, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 293-301.
Amaratunga, D. (2000), “Assessment of facilities management performance”, Property
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 258-266.
Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2002), “Moving from performance measurement to performance
management”, Facilities, Vol. 20 Nos 5/6, pp. 217-223.
Asiabaka, I.P. (2008), “The need for effective facility management in schools in Nigeria”, New York
Science Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 10-21.
Atkin, B. (2003), “Contracting out or managing services in-house”, Nordic Journal of Surveying
and Real Estate Research, Special series 1.
Atkin, B. and Brooks, A. (2000), “Budget 2003: report – chapter 6: delivering high quality public
services”, Total Facilities Management, Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. British Ministry of
Finance, 2003, available at: www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/budget/bud_bud03/budget_report/
bud_bud03_repchap6.cfm
Belcher, R.G. (1997), “Corporate objectives, facilities, measurement and use: a university model”,
Proceedings of the RICS Cobra Conference, Portsmouth.
Buys, N.S. and Tonono, E. (2007), “Reasons for the transformation of facilities management in the
public sector”, Acta Structilia, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 76-90.
CABE (2005), “Design with distinction: the value of the good building design in higher education”,
available at: www.cabe.org.uk (accessed on 25 November 2011).
Chandrashekaran, A. and Gopalakrishnan, B. (2008), “Maintenance risk reduction for
effective facilities management”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 52-68.
Chitopanich, S. (2004), “Positioning facilities management”, Facilities, Vol. 22 Nos 13/14, Facilities
pp. 364-372.
management
Clarke, G. (1997), “Reassessing resource allocation strategies in higher education: methods for
analysis’”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 11 No. 6,
practices
pp. 286-292.
Douglas, J. (1996), “Building performance and its relevance to facilities management’”, Facilities,
Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 23-32. 23
Dror, Y. (1967), “The planning process: a facet design in planning, programming and budgeting:
a system, approach to management”, in Lyden, F.J. and Miller, E.G. (Eds), Markham
Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Ekundayo, H.T. and Ajayi, I.A. (2009), “Towards effective management of university education in
Nigeria”, International NGO Journal, Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 342-347.
Fenker, M. (2004), “Organization changes, representations and facilities”, In Alexander, K. (Ed.),
Facilities Management: Innovation and Performance, Taylor Francis.
Gagendran, T. (2000), An Integrated Approach to Assess Facilities Performance, Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, National University of Singapore.
Gbadegesin and Aluko (2014), “Public private partnerships/private finance initiatives for
financing infrastructure in public tertiary institutions in Nigeria”, Built Environment
Project and Asset Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 199-215.
Green, A. and Price, I. (2000), “Whither FM? A study of the profession and the industry”, Facilities,
Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 281-292.
Hebert, P. and Chaney, S. (2011), “Enhancing facilities management through generational
awareness”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 145-152.
Ikediashi, D.I., Ogunlana, S.O., Bowles, G. and Mbamali, I. (2012), “Outsourcing of facilities
management services in Nigeria’s public universities”, In Laryea, S., Agyepong, S.A.,
Leiringer, R. and Hughes, W. (Eds), Proceeding 4th West Africa Built Environment
Research (WABER) Conference, 24-26 July 2012, Abuja, pp. 725-735.
International Facility Management Institution-IFMA (2006), “What is FM?”, available at:
www.ifma.org/what_is_fm/index.cfm
Kaiser, H.H. (1989), The Facilities Manager’s Reference: Management, Planning, Building Audits,
Estimating, R.S., Means Co.
Kerschkam, F.O. (1991), “School facilities management”, Facilities, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 14-19.
Khazraei, K. and Duese, J. (2011), “A strategic standpoint on maintenance taxonomy”, Journal of
Facilities Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-113.
Knezevich, S.I. (1975), Administration of Public Education, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Kortze, M. and Nkado, R. (2003), “An investigation into the use of facility management in
institutions of higher learning in South Africa”, Proceedings CIDB 1st Postgraduate
Conference, Port Elizabeth.
Kowalski, T. (1983), Solving Educational Facility Problems, Accelerated Development, Muncie,
Indiana.
Lavy, S. (2008), “Facility management practices in higher education buildings”, Journal of
Facilities Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 303-315.
Lind, H. and Muyingo, H. (2011), “Building maintenance strategies: planning under uncertainty”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
Lind, H. and Muyingo, H. (2012), “Building maintenance strategies: planning under uncertainty”,
Property Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
JFM Marmolejo, F. (2007), Higher Education Facilities: Issues and Trends, PEB Exchange 2007/1
ISSN 1609-7548.
13,1
Marteinsson, B. (2003), “Durability and the factor method of ISO 15686-1”, Building Research and
Information, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 416-426.
Moohan, J.A.J. (1993), “Strategic property management in colleges”, paper presented at the
seminar organized by Garland Associates, New Connaught Rooms, London.
24 Moore, M. and Finch, E. (2004), “Facilities management in South East Asia”, Facilities, Vol. 22
Nos 9/10, pp. 259-270.
National Universities Commission (NUC) (2006), “Ban on admission into more programmes with
denied accreditation”, Monday Memo, Vol. 4 No. 18.
Nutt, Bev and McLennan, Peter (2000), Facility Management: Risks and Opportunities, Blackwell
Science, Oxford.
Nwagwu, N.A. (1978), Primary School Administration, Lagos Macmillan Nigerian Publishers.
Odediran, S.J., Opatunji, O.A. and Eghenure, O.F. (2012), “Maintenance of residential buildings:
users’ practices in Nigeria”, Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 261-265.
Ogunsaju, S. (2000), “Nature and purpose of educational management in Femi Durosaro and
Segun Ogunsaju”,The Craft of Educational Management, Haytee Books, Ilorin.
Ojo, P.K. (2002), “Property management and facility management: any difference?”, paper
presented at a Continuing Professional Development Organized Seminar by the Lagos State
Branch of the NIESV, Lagos.
Omirin, M.M. (2000), “The role of estate surveyors and valuers in facility management in the new
millennium”, paper presented at the Departmental Seminar Organized by Department of
Estate Management, Yaba College of Technology, Lagos.
Onifade, K. (2003), “Informatics in hospital management”, M.Sc. Research Report, Department of
Business Administration, University of Lagos.
Onyeneye, O.Y. (2006), “Current issues in the administration of university education in Nigeria”,
The 5th Convocation Ceremony of University of Ado-Ekiti, March 29.
Pathirage, C., Haigh, R., Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2008), “Knowledge management
practices in facilities organisations: a case study”, Journal of Facilities of Management,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Pitt, M. and Price, S. (2011), “Implications of a sustainability policy for facilities management
organisations”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 9/10, pp. 391-410.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1995), “Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better”, Facilities,
Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 19-28.
Price, I. (2003), “Facility management as an emerging discipline”, in Best, R., Langston, C. and
De Valence, G. (Eds), Workplace Strategies and Facilities Management Building in Value,
Butherworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Rose, R., Cain, D.A., Dempsey, J.J. and Schneider, R. (2007), “Buildings … the gift that keep on
taking-a framework for integrated decision making”, APPA and the Center for Facilities
Research, Alexandria, VA.
Sani, A.M. (1998), “Emergent trends in facility management”, Paper presented at NIESV, 28th
Annual Conference, Kano.
Sergiovanni, T.J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F.D. and Thurston, P.W. (1980), Educational
Governance and Administration, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Setzer, R.K. and Zuschlag, E.F. (1995), “Condition assessment survey”, The Military Engineer, Facilities
Vol. 87, pp. 31-33.
management
Solomon, L.A. and Cloete, C.E. (2006), “The effectiveness of facilities management services in the
Western Cape”, Conference Proceedings of the First Built Environment Conference, The practices
Built Environment, Johannesburg, June 18-20.
Teicholz, E. (2001), Facility Design and Management Handbook, McGraw-Hill, Washington, DC.
Then, D.S.S. (1999), “An integrated resource management view of facilities management”, 25
Facilities, Vol. 17 Nos 12/13, pp. 462-469.
Toro, B.R. (1995), “Planning and programming for military-facility reuse”, Journal of Architectural
Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 82-83.
Varcoe, B.J. (1996), “Business-driven facilities benchmarking”, Facilities, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4,
p. 42.
Waggaman, J.S. (1992), Strategies and Consequences: Managing the Cost of Higher Education, ERIC,
George Washington University, Washington, DC, available at: www.ed.gov/databases/
ERIC_Digest/ed347959.html
Weller, L.D. (1995), “School restructuring and downsizing: using TQM to promote
cost-effectiveness”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 11-16.
Whitford, J. (2006), “Facility assessment and renewal”, available at: www.jacqueswhitford.com/
en/home/servicegroups/facilityassessment/facilityassessment.aspx
World Bank (2009), Higher Education: the Lesson of Experience, The World Bank, Washington,
DC.

Further reading
Alexander, K. and Brown, M. (2006), “Community-based facilities management”, Facilities, Vol. 24
Nos 7/8, pp. 250-268.
Atkin, B. and Brooks, A. (2005), Total Facilities Management, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Atkin, B. and Brooks, A. (2009), Total Facilities Management, 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell Publishers,
New York, NY.
Brook, A. and Atkin, B. (2002), “Total facilities management UK: blackwell publishing
commonwealth secretariat”, Microcomputer in Schools: Policy and Implementation
Guidelines, Commonwealth Secretariat, Educational Programme, London.
Martinsons, M.G. (1994), “Benchmarking human resource information systems in Canada and
Hong Kong”, Information & Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 305-316.
Nutt, B. (1992), “Facility management: the basis for applications research”, in Barrett, P. (Ed.),
Facilities Management: Research Directions, RICS Books.

About the authors

Sunday Julius Odediran is a Quantity Surveyor and a Corporate Member of the Nigerian Institute
of Quantity Surveyors (MNIQS) and a Registered Quantity Surveyor (RQS). He holds National
Diploma with Distinction, BSc (Honours) and MSc in Quantity Surveying. He is a Lecturer at the
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Currently, he is
in a PhD programme in Construction Economics and Management at University of Cape Town,
South Africa. He has published articles in learned journals and presented papers at refereed
conferences. His research interests include international construction, informal construction
sector, organizational business and leadership, contractors’ performance and contract
procurement. Sunday Julius Odediran is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
sjodediran@yahoo.co.uk
JFM Job Taiwo Gbadegesin is currently a Lecturer in the Department of Estate Management,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. His areas of research focus on PPP for
13,1 property/infrastructure development finance, housing and property management. He is an
Associate of Nigeria Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers and a Registered Corporate
Member of the Estate Surveyors and Valuers Registration Board of Nigeria.
Mujidat Olubola Babalola is a Quantity Surveyor, a Fellow member of the Nigerian
Institute of Quantity Surveyors and an RQS. He holds BSc (Honours) and MSc in Quantity
26 Surveying and a PhD in Construction Management. He is an Associate Professor at the
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He has
published articles in learned journals and presented papers at refereed conferences. His
research interests include construction management and economics; measurement,
estimating and contract administration of building services and construction works.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.